"Where else would you go when you have an ax to grind?"

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Bordering on the insane

An American academic and former 1960s radical accused by U.S. vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin of being a “terrorist” friend of Barack Obama's has been denied entry into Canada to speak at an education conference.
William Ayers, a distinguished education professor from the University of Illinois at Chicago, said he was perplexed and disappointed when the Canada Border Services Agency declared him inadmissible at the Toronto City Centre Airport on Sunday evening.
He said he has travelled to Canada more than a dozen times in the past.

Of all the dumbass, pig-ignorant, petty, moronic, pissy, neocon attempts at revenge, this is one of the most ill-timed. No, I don't think border services called Steverino up at 24 Sussex for marching orders, but I do know that to be denied entry you either have to arouse suspicion in the border guard that inteviews you or have you name on a list somewhere. So either the border guard involved is a FOX-watching nitwit who thought he was doing his job and "teaching those pinkos a lesson" or the someone more senior in the relevant ministry made a completely tone-deaf and idiotic decision, likely in the belief that they were doing their job and "teaching those pinkos a lesson."

All things considered, I suppose we should all be grateful he wasn't tasered to death with impunity or anything.


Patrick Ross said...

Or, an individual who knows Ayers is formerly a known domestic terrorist. Even if not convicted, but by his own admission.

the rev. paperboy said...

Patticakes! Wow, I guess I've hit the big time now! Next thing Richard Evans will buying up similar URLs and linking them to the communist party or kiddie porn or something.

He was an American domestic terrorist 40 years ago Patrick. He's never done anything wrong in Canada. Do we want to apply the same rules to other people? It would have meant refusing entry to Menachim Begin, Nelson Mandela, and a whole lot of other people over the years. Many, many members of the Irish government for example.

Patrick Ross said...

What are you taking pages out of Rob Anders' play book here?

Nelson Mandela is not a terrorist. Bill Ayers was.

I'm pretty sure Nelson Mandela never said anything like, "Kill all the rich people. Bring the revolution home. Kill your parents."

That is bordering on the insane. Somehow, I'm not shocked you can't tell the difference.

the rev. paperboy said...

Patsy, Patsy, Patsy, your total ignorance of the subject matter is showing again. You and I may not consider Mandela a terrorist and many people did consider the members of the Stern Gang terrorists either. A lot of people considered them freedom fighters, but the governments of the United States and South Africa and Great Britian all consider them terrorists.

From Wikipedia:
"In 1961, Mandela became leader of the ANC's armed wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe (translated Spear of the Nation, and also abbreviated MK), which he co-founded.[28] He coordinated sabotage campaigns against military and government targets, making plans for a possible guerrilla war if the sabotage failed to end apartheid.[29] Mandela also raised funds for MK abroad and arranged for paramilitary training of the group.[29]

Fellow ANC member Wolfie Kadesh explains the bombing campaign led by Mandela:

"When we knew that we going to start on 16 December 1961, to blast the symbolic places of apartheid, like pass offices, native magistrates courts, and things like that ... post offices and ... the government offices. But we were to do it in such a way that nobody would be hurt, nobody would get killed."[30] Mandela said of Wolfie: "His knowledge of warfare and his first hand battle experience were extremely helpful to me."[8]

Mandela described the move to armed struggle as a last resort; years of increasing repression and violence from the state convinced him that many years of non-violent protest against apartheid had not and could not achieve any progress.[31][8]

Later, mostly in the 1980s, MK waged a guerrilla war against the apartheid regime in which many civilians became casualties.[29] Mandela later admitted that the ANC, in its struggle against apartheid, also violated human rights, sharply criticising those in his own party who attempted to remove statements supporting this fact from the reports of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.[32]

Up until July 2008, Mandela and ANC party members were barred from entering the United States — except the United Nations headquarters in Manhattan — without a special waiver from the US Secretary of State, because of their South African apartheid regime era designation as terrorists."

the rev. paperboy said...

The point Patsy, is that just because someone is called a terrorist by the regime they are trying to overthrow, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are a terrorist.
In addition, Ayers has been convicted of only misdemenors, and those were 40 years ago.

the rev. paperboy said...

And yes, I'm aware that Menachem Begin wasn't part of the Stern Gang. He was the head of the Irgun, a different militant zionist "terrorist" group. Like Mandela, he later won the Nobel Peace Prize, just like Yassir Arafat.

Patrick said...

Hmmmmmm. Interesting.

Nelson Mandela resisted an oppressive South African regime.

Bill Ayers advocated building a political order in the United States that would have been -- because it always has been -- oppressive.

Once again, rev, these two are not the same.

Although it's interesting to see that maybe, just maybe you were actually in favour of apartheid.

the rev. paperboy said...

pittipat, you really do have a talent for not getting it, don't you? Why don't you just slink back under your bridge?

Patrick Ross said...

What's there to be gotten?

You're trying to argue that Bill Ayers and Nelson Mandela should be regarded in the same fashion.

This leads logically to one of two arguments: that either Nelson Mandela is just as bad as Bill Ayers, or that Bill Ayers is just as good as Nelson Mandela.

But when one looks at the facts, nothing could be further from the truth.

Not only was Mandela himself being oppressed in South Africa, but his entire race was being oppressed.

Bill Ayers wasn't being oppressed. He was a whacked-out, cracked-out hippie from the suburbs. Moreover, he wanted to replace the American political system with a communist system. No where has a communist system ever been implimented without significant oppression of anyone who doesn't belong to the new elite.

Unless you want to argue that Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro and Mao Tsetung were dandy fellas.

There's nothing to get. You have no argument.

the rev. paperboy said...

hmmm, lets see both Mandela and Ayers were involved in bombing campaigns - Mandela's incidentally killed a lot more people - both wanted to overthrow a government that they felt was oppressive. South Africa had its apartheid system, while America had the draft, systemic racism, police brutality, COINTELPRO etc etc --I'm not saying that the two are on par with one another, but the Weathermen certainly weren't alone in thinking that conscripting (mostly poor) people to fight in Vietnam was a form of oppression.

Stalin, Mao and Castro have nothing to do with this arguement and I don't know why you are even bringing them up other than as part of your usual goalpost moving.

I don't consider Mandela a terrorist, but the United States did until last summer. I don't think what Ayers did 40 years ago should be used as an excuse to bar him from the country now, especially since, unlike Mandela, he was never convicted of any terrorist acts. As I said in the first place, I think this is just some kind of petty bullshit abuse of authority be someone who wanted to "stick it to the pinkos."

Despite his past activities, Ayers has gone on to become a very well-respected expert in the field of education and was coming to Canada to take part in a conference on education, not to blow up weapons factories or recruiting stations.

You may not like Communism, but being a communist or a former communist is not illegal, nor is it grounds to bar someone from entering the country. Would you have a problem allowing Henry Kissinger into Canada? How about Gordon Liddy? Or Charles Coulson? Or former Russian police officers? Or former South African police officers? What if Bull Connor had wanted to retire to Victoria BC? Do you think Paul Rose should have been allowed back into Canada? I know it will take you time to google some of those names, so I won't expect a reply too soon.

But, if you want to continue to play, how about we leave the goalposts where they are and you address what I've said instead of building another strawman?

David said...

Shorter "Fuckwit Ross":

"But...but...glurpgphhergak...I win!"

But then, he is a self-proclaimed asshole. And I am sure some of the female frosh think his brand of intellectualism is most ut.

Patrick Ross said...

"Stalin, Mao and Castro have nothing to do with this arguement and I don't know why you are even bringing them up other than as part of your usual goalpost moving."

Nonsense, and if you weren't terrified to confront the realities underlying Bill Ayers's activities, you'd unerstand this.

Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground wanted to replace the American political order with a communist order.

Communism, which has been almost uniformly oppressive everywhere it was implemented -- but especially in Russia, China and Cuba.

So, once again, back to the point you're trying to dodge here: could the United States be considered oppressive by some? That case can very much be argued.

Is the answer to replace that system with an oppressive system?

Well, maybe that logic makes sense to you.

"You may not like Communism, but being a communist or a former communist is not illegal, nor is it grounds to bar someone from entering the country."

Certainly not, but conducting a terrorist campaign in favour of creating a communist state is.

You're trying to make this about Bill Ayers and his ideas. This has nothing to do with his ideas. If we were to bar people from the country based on such beliefs, we couldn't have allowed John Lennon -- a communist sympathizer at the very least -- into Canada. If Lennon were alive today and denied entry into Canada I'd be one of the first to denounce it.

Then again, Lennon never set a bomb in the name of replacing an allegedly oppressive state when a system that has demosntrably and unquestionably been oppressive everywhere it's been implimented.

The very nature of the modern South African regime clears Nelson Mandela of any such charges. Certainly, some people could try to argue that they've been oppressed in post-apartheid South Africa -- Afrikaners occasionally have -- but there's a big difference between a truth and reconciliation commission that you don't like and building an officially institutionalized caste system of Afrikaners and "keffers" (as they called black people).

Whether you care to admit it or not, the reason why Ayers should never, ever be allowed into this country lies with what he did and why he did it.

David said...


Wow. Misspelled and offensive.

the rev. paperboy said...

"misspelled and offensive" is pretty much Patsy in a nutshell isn't it?

I don't want to make this about Ayers ideas, but you seem to. I don't really care about his ideas 40 years ago. You claim this is about what he did, but the fact is that he has not been convicted of waging a bombing campaign or murdering policemen or any such thing. He may have admitted to setting bombs, but hundreds of people every year confess to having shot JFK -- absent a conviction and criminal record, there are no grounds to bar him from entering the country.

Mandela on the other hand, while he is hero to right-thinking people everywhere, was undeniably a terrorist and was convicted in a court of law for violent acts.
Since you are clearly ignorant of the history of the ANC, let me school you a bit. Like most anticolonial liberation groups, the ANC has a long involvement with --that's right --COMMUNISM!!!
Have a look at their history
So maybe Mandela and Ayers aren't so different from each other in ideology after all.

As an aside Patticakes, you really need to learn to think and argue more logically and honestly. Saying "You're trying to make this about Bill Ayers and his ideas. This has nothing to do with his ideas" after you've spent a half dozen paragraphs explaining that his reasons for setting the bombs are what is important is utterly self defeating.
You are right about one thing - I do think that Ayers and Mandela should be treated the same, in fact I think all people trying to enter Canada from abroad should be treated the same. Its called equality in the eyes of the law. You could look it up, but I'm pretty sure its in the constitution.

Your case seems to consist of "Everybody knows Ayers is a terrorist, so he shouldn't be admitted to Canada" -- well, being a former terrorist, especially one that hasn't been convicted of any terrorist acts, especially if cause in which you committed those acts no longer applies is not necessarily aways a reason to bar someone from entering the country.

And as usual, you haven't addressed any of my specific questions.